On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:02:41 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
Ed sed:
Look at Table 4:
Damn, that's where I went wrong. I missed the 4 little words above.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Pu...e-in-2005.html
g They didn't do a very good job of labelling things, but take a look at
the title for that table you're reading. The title is "Table 1: Taxes for
the Military and Expenditures by State." They should have said "Taxes for
the Military and Military Expenditures by State." They were a little sloppy.
Oh, good. It wasn't -all- my fault this time. vbg
You're looking at taxes and expenditures for the military only. You want
"Table 4: Total Expenditures by State." If you still question this, take a
look at the "IRS Total Collection" figure a couple of columns across in
Table 4. You may recognize that as the total tax revenue of the US.
All together now...and a vun, and a twoa, and a three...
If I had never been forced to sit through it with Nana (my mother's
mother), I'd never have recognized the Lawrence Welk reference. Thanks
for the bad memories. cue champagne bubbles
OK, it was table 4 where I made the mistake. I misread the column
title "Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers"
as "expenditures by state". Mea culpa.
Darn, when you do this as a running commentary, I often find I just wrote
something that was a complete waste...like now. Not complaining, not
complaining....
No complaint, just a bit of Joisey whine, eh? You could always read
the whole message first, then reply. It's not like I'm a novelist or
nuttin'. chortle
It's actually their culpa. As I said, they were sloppy in writing the
headings for the columns.
I'm relieved. (Sure is nice out. "Yes, I think I'll leave it out.")
sigh Hey, Larry, read the column headings -- the second column,
particularly. ND gets $2.26 back for every dollar they put in. Not bad,
eh?
New Mexico is tops at $3.10!
I didn't do New Mexico because of all the illegals there. I figured you'd
complain, so I passed it by.
Point to Ed.
Now, having said all that, let me point out that someone might argue with
you about these numbers because the Tax Foundation or whatever has a
slightly different set of numbers. It's safe to ignore them. They aren't
sticking to original-source data and they have an ax to grind. And the
relationships are still pretty much the same. At least, NJ comes out sucking
hind tit, as usual.
Bbbut, we gave you all that industry, and... gd&r
There are three situations that will get a state in the positive column. One
is to have a lot of very poor people. The second is to have a lot of federal
land or military facilities. The third is to have an extra helping of
defense contractors.
OR has very few people (mostly poor) + a lot of federal land.
NM has Los Alamos. NM is #1, we're #25.
In general, the deep South and the mountain West make out the best. In past
years, California has (IIRC) made out a lot better. And Alaska, of course.
Isn't it because they have to -pay- people to -live- in the Fort
Stinkin' Frozen Norths of ND and AK?
These tend to be the same places that have the greatest number of people who
bitch and moan about how they're getting raped with taxes. In fact, as you
can see, they be the rapists, not the rapees. PV is right: NY state is
taking it in the rear almost as badly as NJ. New Jersey and Connecticut
usually have the two highest per-capita incomes in the US. Thus, we get
screwed.
Take another look. Judging by the IRS total and tax per capita
figures from D.C., they've got the lion's share of wealthy and/or
income kings. Minnesota and Delaware also pay more taxes per capita
than you and NY do; right up there with CT.
--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool